JJ 


iDSF 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re¬ 
sponsible  for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
which  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/ethicsoftrilbywiOOplat 


\Z2> 

)g StYp 


THE  ETHICS  OF  TRILBY  :  WITH  A  SUP¬ 
PLEMENTAL  NOTE  ON  SPIRIT¬ 
UAL  AFFINITY:  BY  ISAAC  HULL 
PLATT 


Very  ma,7iy  thanks  for  your  kind  letter ,  and  also 
for  “  The  Ethics  of  Trilby ,  ”  which  gave  7ne  great  en- 
courage7nent  a7id  delight ,  and  for  which  I  a7n  deeply 
obliged  to  you. 

George  du  Maurier  to  Isaac  Hull  Platt,  February  3,  1895 


Philadelphia 
THE  CONSERVATOR 
1895 


# 


f 


WALT  WHITMAN'S  PUBLICATIONS 

Leaves  of  Grass.  Comprises  all  the  author’s  Poetical  Works  down  to  date, 

1892.  1  vol.,  crown,  8  vo,  gilt  top,  uncut  edges, . $2.00 

Complete  Prose  Works.  Containing  “Specimen  Days  and  Collect” 
complete,  and  all  the  later  prose  from  “November  Boughs”  and  “Good-by 

My  Fancy.”  1  vol.,  crown,  8vo,  cloth,  gilt  top,  uncut  edges, . $2.00 

Above  volumes,  being  Whitman  s  Complete  Works,  are  bound  uniform  ;  set,  2 

vols., . $4.00 

Specimen  Rays  ami  Collect.  1  vol.,  i2mo.,  cloth, . $1.50 

Xovember  Roughs.  Containing  Poems  under  the  title  of  “  Sands  at  Sev¬ 
enty  ;  ”  also  in  Prose,  “  A  Backward  Glance  o’er  Travel’d  Roads,”  and  a  Col¬ 
lection  of  Essays  on  Shakspere,  Burns,  Tennyson,  etc.,  1  vol.,  crown,  8vo,  gilt 

top,  uncut  edges, . $1.25 

Good-by,  31  y  Fancy.  Containing  all  Poems  later  than  “  Sands  at  Seventy,’ 
and  a  number  of  Essays  in  Prose.  Crown,  8vo,  gilt  top,  uniform  with  “  Novem¬ 
ber  Boughs,” . $1.00 

After  all  >Tot  to  Create  Only.  Only  a  small  balance  of  the  original 
edition,  Boston,  1871.  i2mo,  cloth,  .  .  .  . . 50c. 

Author's  Autograph  editions 

Complete  Works.  Edition,  600  Copies.  1  vol.,  large  octavo,  half  cloth, 

paper  label . $12.00 

Leaves  of  Rrass.  Pocket  Edition.  1889.  i2mo,  morocco,  tuck  .  .  .  $10.00 


At  the  tiraveside  Of  Walt  Whitman.  Addresses  and  Letters.  Ed¬ 
ited  by  Horace  L.  Traubel.  Edition  limited.  Fine  gray  paper . 50c. 

Walt  Whitman.  By  Richard  Maurice  Bucke.  Illustrated  with  portrait  of 
Whitman  etched  by  Herbert  H.  Gilchrist,  England  ;  a  portrait  from  life  of 
Whitman  in  1880;  portraits  of  Whitman’s  father  and  mother,  and  three  other 
illustrations.  i2mo,  cloth,  gilt  top,  uncut, . $1.50. 

Camden's  Compliment  to  Walt  Whitman  on  His  Seventi¬ 
eth  Rirthday.  With  frontispiece  from  bust  by  Sidney  H.  Morse.  Con¬ 
taining  Addresses,  Letters,  Notes  and  Telegrams.  Edited  by  Horace  L. 
Traubel.  Octavo,  cloth,  gilt  top, . . . 50c. 

In  re  Walt  Whitman.  Edited  by  Whitman’s  Literary  Executors.  Con¬ 
tains  Essays  and  Poems,  original  or  inaccessible,  from  Symonds,  Sarrazin, 
Ingersoll,  O’Connor,  Knortz,  Rolleston,  Schmidt  and  others.  Edition  limited 
to  1,000  copies,  numbered.  Cloth, . $3.00 

DAVID  McKAY,  Publisher,  Philadelphia 


THE  ETHICS  OF  TRILBY 


“  There  are  not  a  few  people  who  will  remember  the 
first  half  of  1894,  not  for  the  hard  times,  nor  for  the' 
yacht  races,  nor  any  other  thing  of  public  interest  or 
private  concern,  so  much  as  for  the  pleasure  they  had  in 
reading  ‘  Trilby.’  ’ ’ 

So  says  Margaret  Sangster  in  one  of  the  ablest  reviews 
of  this  remarkable  book.  Doubtless  the  great  interest 
excited  by  “  Trilby”  is  in  no  small  measure  due  to  the 
author’s  happy  way  of  telling  his  story.  The  easy, 
chatty,  rollicking,  seemingly  careless  style  has  a  wonder¬ 
ful  fascination.  Not  but  that  the  story  has  sadness- 
enough,  but,  as  the  reviewer  in  the  Indepe?ident  says, 
“  even  when  the  author  weeps  with  his  weepers  his  tears 
.seem  as  the  April  scuds,  with  sunshine  on  their  wings.” 

But  beyond  this  matter  of  style  there  is  a  deeper 
meaning,  and  the  book  has  touched  and  set  vibrating 
a  chord  deep  in  the  human  heart.  The  story  is  a  trag¬ 
edy,  but  with  the  tragedy  there  is  such  a  spirit  of  hope 
and  faith  and  joyousness,  such  an  all-persuading  optim¬ 
ism,  that  the  reader,  having  followed  the  hero  and 
heroine  through  their  sorrows  even  to  death,  closes  the 
book  with  a  sense  of  tender  wonderment  and  an  inde¬ 
scribable  feeling  that  back  of  and  beneath  all  the  pain1 
and  sin  and  wretchedness  there  are  joy  and  right  in  the 
inherencies  of  things.  In  language  at  times  almost 
flippant  the  author  contrives,  with  great  dramatic  power, 
to  convey  a  deep  ethical  meaning.  He  never  preaches  ; 

(0 


2 


but  mere  preaching  falls  as  far  short  of  the  moral  signifi¬ 
cance  of  this  work  as  a  modern  orthodox  sermon  does 
to  the  story  of  the  Magdalen. 

The  ethical  question  in  regard  to  the  story  turns 
mainly  on  the  character  of  Trilby  herself. 

‘  ‘  She  had  all  the  virtues  but  one  ;  but  the  virtue  she 
lacked  was  the  very  one  that  plays  the  title  role  and  gives 
its  generic  name  to  all  the  rest  of  that  goodly  company. 
Whether  it  be  an  aggravation  of  her  misdeeds  or  an 
extenuating  circumstance,  no  pressure  of  want,  no  temp¬ 
tations  of  greed  or  vanity  had  ever  been  factors  in  urging 
Trilby  in  her  downward  career  after  her  first  false  step 
in  that  direction — the  result  of  ignorance,  bad  advice 
(from  her  mother,  of  all  people  in  the  world),  and  base 
betrayal.  She  might  have  lived  in  guilty  splendor,  had 
she  chosen,  but  her  wants  were  few.  She  had  no  vanity, 
and  her  tastes  were  of  the  simplest,  and  she  earned 
enough  to  gratify  them  and  to  spare.  .  .  .  Indeed, 

she  might  almost  be  said  to  possess  a  virginal  heart,  so 
little  did  she  know  of  love’s  heart-aches  and  raptures 
and  torments  and  clingings  and  jealousies.” 

It  is  her  association  with  the  “  three  clean  young  Eng¬ 
lishmen,”  whose  life  of  chivalrous  comradeship  so 
charms  us  all,  that  leads  her  to  a  sense  of  shame.  It 
has  been  urged  that  her  repentance  was  not  very  bitter  ; 
but  what  matters  it?  It  was  sincere,  for  it  led  her  to  a 
better  life — a  more  serious  realization  of  life. 

In  renouncing  her  lover  for  what  she  believes  to  be 
his  good  she  performs  an  act  of  heroic  self-sacrifice. 
Years  after,  in  the  face  of  approaching  death,  when  she 
reviews  her  life  in  the  conversation  with  Mrs.  Bagot,  she 
mentions,  as  the  lowest  and  meanest  thing  she  ever  did— 
the  one  that  had  caused  her  the  bitterest  remorse— 
that  once,  on  a  Palm  Sunday,  in  order  to  further  her 


3 


own  enjoyment  of  the  day,  she  broke  her  promise  to  her 
little  brother. 

“  It  was  six  or  seven  years  ago,  and  I  really  believe  I 
have  thought  of  it  almost  every  day,  and  sometimes  in 
the  middle  of  the  night  !  And  when  Jeannot  was  dying, 
and  when  he  was  dead — the  remembrance  of  that  Palm 
Sunday  !”  “  O  Trilby,  what  nonsense  !  ”  replied  the 

good  orthodox  Mrs.  Bagot  ;  “  that' s  nothing — putting  off 
a  small  child  !  I’m  thinking  of  far  worse  things — when 
you  were  in  the  Latin  Quarter,  you  know — sitting  to 
painters  and  sculptors — surely,  so  attractive  as  you  are — ’  ’ 
“  Oh  !  yes — I  know  what  you  mean — it  was  horrid, 
and  I  was  frightfully  ashamed  of  myself;  and  it  wasn’t 
amusing  a  bit  ;  nothing  was,  until  I  met  your  son  and 
Taffy  and  dear  Sandy  McAlister  !  But  then  it  wasn’t 
deceiving  or  disappointing  anybody  or  hurting  their 
feelings — it  was  only  hurting  myself!” 

Mrs.  Bagot  wishes  Trilby  to  see  a  clergyman  and 
receive  the  comforts  of  religion,  but  Trilby  does  not  feel 
the  need  of  them.  She  is  not  afraid  to  die.  Her  father 
had  told  her  there  would  be  no  hell  for  any  of  us,  except 
what  we  make  for  ourselves  and  each  other  down  here. 
He  told  her  to  be  good  and  not  to  mind  what  priests  and 
clergymen  said.  He  had  been  a  clergyman  himself  and 
knew  all  about  it,  Trilby  said.  He  told  her  that  God 
would  make  it  all  right  for  us  somehpw,  in  the  end — for 
all  of  us — “  and  that  seems  sensible,  does?i' t  it  ?  ” 

It  is  doubtful  if  this  book  was  written  with  a  conscious 
ethical  purpose.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  Du 
Maurier  sought  rather  to  depict  certain  phases  of  life  as 
he  saw  them  in  the  rosy  light  of  his  own  buoyant  nature  : 
the  free  and  generous  life  of  Bohemia  as  opposed  to  the 
stupid  and  selfish  life  of  respectability  ;  the  love  of  com¬ 
rades,  and  warm-hearted  human  kindness  of  sometimes 


f 

5 

4 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


4 


■erring  men  and  women.  But  its  ethical  significance  is 
none  the  less  (rather  more),  considered  as  a  reflex  of  a 
generous  human  soul,  than  if  it  were  written  with  a  dis¬ 
tinct  didactic  purpose. 

All  things  considered,  it  is  rather  surprising,  in  view 
of  the  great  number  who  have  read  the  book,  with  its 
unconventional  ethics,  and  the  amount  of  comment  it 
has  excited,  that  so  little  has  been  found  to  say  against 
it  from  a  moral  point  of  view.  And  this  is  encouraging 
as  a  sign  of  the  times.  Probably  the  best  presentation 
of  the  adverse  criticism  is  the  editorial  in  the  Outlook 
for  September  22.  After  highly  praising  the  work,  con¬ 
sidered  as  an  artistic  production,  the  writer  considers 
the  question:  “Is  ‘Trilby’  a  moral  story?”  and  to 
this  gives  a  negative  reply  in  this  wise  : 

‘  ‘  The  net  result  is  not  a  noble  note  in  honor  of  feminine 
chastity  ;  rather  the  reverse.  What  the  ‘  Scarlet  Letter  ’ 
treats  as  a  sacrilege,  in  the  very  spirit  of  Paul  himself, 
this  story  treats  as  a  fault  easily  condoned,  almost  over¬ 
looked.  The  drawing  of  Trilby’s  character  is  morally 
untrue.  In  life  innocence  is  not  retained  after  virtue  is  : 
lost  ;  and  character  drawing  which  is  morally  untrue  is 
morally  unwholesome.  The  story  of  ‘  Trilby  ’  is  ancient 
Gnosticism  done  into  modern  dramatic  form — the  story 
of  a  pure  soul  untainted  by  a  polluted  life — and  Gnosti¬ 
cism  is  false.  To  the  question,  then,  ‘Is  “Trilby”  a 
moral  story  ?  ’  we  reply  in  the  negative.  Its  moral  stand¬ 
ard  is  a  purely  conventional  one — that  of  the  social  code 
of  honor.  The  eternal  sanctions  of  righteousness,  which 
are  never  ignored  in  the  greatest  works  of  the  greatest 
artists,  are  wholly  lacking.  Religion  is  never  referred  to 
except  in  its  most  conventional  forms,  and  then  only  to 
be  satirized  ;  perhaps  we  should  say  travestied.  It  is 
true  the  story  exalts  all  the  social  virtues  except  one. 
But  for  unchastity  in  woman  it  inspires  rather  the  con- 


5 


% 


donation  which  comes  of  comparative  indifference,  than 
the  forgiveness  which  comes  of  a  pure  and  pitying  love.  ’  ’ 

If  the  expression  ‘  ‘  innocence  is  not  retained  after 
virtue  is  lost,”  means  anything  beyond  a  stupid  truism, 
it  means  that  the  particular  error  of  which  Trilby  was 
guilty  is  of  a  nature  so  debasing  that  by  it  the  very  moral 
life  of  the  soul  is  destroyed.  From  it  there  can  be  no 
repentence  ;  the  very  possibility  of  moral  integrity  is 
annihilated.  Such  a  doctrine  is  uncharitable,  inhuman, 
cruel.  It  is  strange  indeed  that  it  should  be  held  by  ad¬ 
herents  to  the  religion  whose  sacred  book  contains  the 
sweet  story  of  the  Magdalen  !  “  Neither  do  I  condemn 

thee  ;  go  and  sin  no  more,”  were  the  words  of  the  man 
they  worship  as  a  god,  and  one  who  perhaps  saw  deeper 
into  the  strength  and  weakness  of  the  human  soul  than 
any  before  or  since.  These  were  words  addressed  to  a 
woman  whose  error  was  Trilby’s  error.  If  “  Trilby  ”  is 
immoral,  the  gospel  attributed  to  St.  John  is  immoral. 
This  may  prove  nothing  to  us,  but  should  give  them 
pause.  They  should  be  the  last  to  condemn  an  ethical 
position  which  is  but  the  echo  of  that  taken  by  him 
whom  they  hail  as  the  divine  savior  of  mankind. 

There  are,  however,  grounds  which,  if  not  higher,  at 
least  appeal  more  directly  to  people  of  liberal  views,  upon 
which  I  would  defend  the  ethics  of  “  Trilby,”  the  book, 
and  the  character  of  Trilby  the  woman.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  hard  to  determine  in  what  respect  Trilby’s  partic¬ 
ular  sin  differed  from  other  sin  in  its  corrupting  influence. 
Reverse  the  case  in  regard  to  sex.  Would  any  one 
allege  that  a  story  in  which  a  man  who  had  been  guilty 
of  unchastity  in  early  life  should  be  depicted  as  brave, 
generous,  humane,  self-sacrificing,  is  immoral  ?  Mani- 


6 

festly,  if  such  an  allegation  could  be  justly  made,  such  a 
man,  in  real  life,  who  should  exhibit  these  admirable 
qualities,  would  be  doubly  reprehensible  :  to  furnish  a 
proper  example  and  adorn  a  moral  tale  he  should  con¬ 
tinue  in  a  downward  course  until  he  reached  the  gallows, 
or  at  least  an  ignominious  grave  at  the  end  of  some  dis¬ 
honorable  career.  If  this  is  not  true  for  a  man,  why  for 
a  woman  ?  In  what  does  the  fault  differ  ?  Abstractly,  not 
at  all.  Concretely,  it  presents  a  more  serious  menace  to 
certain  established  conventions  of  society  as  at  present 
constituted.  It  is  a  greater  offense  against  respectability, 
and,  to  those  who  worship  respectability  as  their  Holy 
Ghost,  it  is  the  unpardonable  sin.  Moreover,  woman,  in 
history,  having  occupied  a  subordinate  position  to  man, 
it  has  been  regarded  as  her  duty  to  her  lord  and  master 
so  to  conduct  herself  as  best  to  meet  with  his  approval 
and  best  to  minister  to  him  ;  while  man,  not  being  under 
corresponding  obligations  to  woman,  was  naturally  left 
more  free.  I  am  not  saying  that,  historically  speaking, 
this  has  not  been  right.  I  believe  that  if  it  had  not  been 
right  it  would  not  have  been,  and  probably  it  has  been 
a  factor  in  the  development  of  certain  admirable  traits 
of  female  character.  But  the  freedom  of  woman  cannot 
be  attained  until  this  invidious  distinction  has  ceased  to 
exist. 

But  waiving  any  question  of  the  relative  turpitude  of 
the  sin,  what  is  sin  ?  It  is  such  a  course  of  conduct  as 
results  from  allowing  a  temporary  and  trivial  benefit  to 
overpower  a  more  remote  but  greater  benefit.  It  is 
shortsightedness.  Considered  as  a  positive  entity,  it  is 
a  force  the  resistance  to  which  develops  character, 
strengthens  and  broadens  the  soul,  just  as  physical  exer- 


7 


cise — the  resistance  to  material  forces — develops  the 
muscles,  strengthens  and  broadens  the  body.  ‘  ‘  What 
is  this  blurt  about  virtue  and  about  vice  ?  Evil  propels 
me  and  the  reform  of  evil  propels  me.”  Without  evil 
there  could  be  no  virtue — only  innocence  ;  no  develop¬ 
ment  of  character — only  stagnation. 

Mr.  Chadwick  writes  (and  he  is  to  be  congratulated 
on  his  courage  in  so  writing)  : 

‘  ‘  There  is  good  morality  in  the  teaching  that  such  a 
fault  as  Trilby’s,  if  not  allied  to  virtue,  is  not  foreign  to 
it  altogether  ;  it  is  so  frequently,  so  generally,  the  fault 
of  liberal,  trusting  natures,  and  is  therefore  deserving  of 
a  hundred  times  more  pity  than  it  commonly  receives.” 

The  Outlook  editorial  is  a  manifest  begging  of  the 
whole  question.  The  distinction  attempted  to  be  drawn 
between  the  social  code  of  honor  and  the  code  of  ethics 
(presumably  his  own),  which  the  writer  considers  to  be 
based  upon  “  the  eternal  sanctions  of  righteousness,”  is 
purely  artificial.  All  codes,  so  far  as  they  are  right,  are 
based  upon  the  eternal  sanctions  of  righteousness,  and 
all  are  imperfect.  All  have  grown  up  from  the  ceaseless 
struggle  of  the  human  soul  toward  the  light.  None  can 
be  checked  off  against  the  eternal  sanctions  of  righteous¬ 
ness  in  this  fashion.  The  last  appeal  open  to  each  of 
us  is  his  own  conscience.  One  ethical  code  condemns 
unchastity  in  woman  (using  the  word  in  its  most  con¬ 
ventional  sense)  as  a  sin  past  forgiveness,  while  it  almost 
ignores  the  question  whether  there  be  such  a  sin  for  man. 
The  other  accords  to  truth  and  honor  the  highest  places 
among  the  virtues.  What  claim  has  the  former  rather 
than  the  latter  code  to  rest  upon  the  ‘  ‘  eternal  sanctions’  ’  ? 

“To  think  of  other  people  before  myself  and  never 


8 


to  tell  lies  or  be  afraid” — this  was  Trilby’s  code,  and 
she  lived  it.  This  is  the  code  which  the  Outlook ,  speak¬ 
ing  for  orthodox  pharisaism,  condemns  as  a  purely 
conventional  standard,  and  says  has  not  the  “eternal 
sanctions  of  righteousness  !  ’  ’ 

“Character  drawing.”  the  reviewer  says,  “which  is 
morally  untrue  is  morally  unwholesome.”  Of  course. 
But  this  is  begging  the  question  again.  The  question  is, 
is  the  character  of  Trilby  morally  untrue?  In  the  story 
we  have  the  record  of  a  woman,  born  and  growing  up 
amid  evil  influences,  temporarily  yielding  to  them  ;  strug¬ 
gling,  and  rising  above  them  ;  repenting  of  her  errors  in 
the  true  sense,  which  means,  not  to  weep  and  feel  re¬ 
morse,  but  to  renounce  them  and  lead  a  better  life  ;  in 
her  developed  character — developed  through  the  struggle 
with  evil — exhibiting  patience,  self-control,  self-sacrifice, 
courage,  dignity  and  unswerving  fidelity.  To  those  who 
consider  the  depiction  of  this  character  immoral  it  might 
be  well  to  call  attention  to  another  and  a  verv  old  story, 
w'hich  perhaps  they  might  call  immoral  if  it  were  new — 
the  story  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  publican  who  went  up 
to  the  temple  to  pray,  and  the  publican  went  down  to  his 
house  justified  rather  than  the  other. 

The  difficulty  that  I  have  found  in  approaching  the 
discussion  of  this  subject  is  its  intangibility.  A  story  like 
this  presents  certain  aspects  of  human  life  in  a  way  to 
suggest  thought  hard  to  reduce  to  precept  and  formula, 
and  this  very  subtlety  constitutes  its  strength.  The  at¬ 
tempt  to  reduce  it  to  bald  statement  is  like  trying  to 
describe  the  perfume  of  a  flower.  It  suggests  “  thoughts 
that  will  not  wear  the  yoke  of  words.” 

The  ethics  of  “  Trilby  ”  appears  not  so  much  in  any 


9 


definite  statement  or  proposition  as  in  the  general  senti¬ 
ment,  feeling,  atmosphere,  and  these  are  wholesome, 
sound  and  pure. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  exact  relative  im¬ 
portance  of  Trilby’s  faults  as  compared  with  other  faults. 
Enough  that  she  rose  above  them.  Enough  that  she 
demonstrated  the  inherent  dignity,  honor,  truthfulness — 
yes,  purity  of  her  soul.  Her  path  may  at  one  time  have 
been  through  bogs  and  fens,  but  it  passed  on  and  by 
devious  ways  reached  at  last  the  sweet,  flowery,  whole¬ 
some  uplands. 

Her  career  is  an  epitome  of  the  ever-advancing  struggle 
of  humanity.  Strengthened  by  evil  overcome  ;  broad¬ 
ened  by  experience  of  life  ;  purified  by  sorrow  bravely 
met — it  rises  triumphant  over  evil,  using  that  very  evil 
as  an  aid  in  its  upward  course. 

I  am  not  very  familiar  with  the  doctrines  of  the  ancient 
Gnostics  ;  but  if  Gnosticism  meant  that  no  sin  can  so 
pollute  the  soul  as  to  inhibit  it  from  losing  on  stepping- 
stones  of  its  dead  self  to  higher  things,  then  I  believe 
,that  not  only  is  it  not  false,  but  that  it  implies  one  of  the 
eternal  verities. 

The  reviewer  in  Unity  says  :  ‘  ‘  The  new  theology  is 

spreading,  but  with  it  is  going  an  ethics  which  threatens 
the  life  and  purity  of  our  American  homes.” 

Well,  if  the  new  theology  is  spreading,  new  ethics 
must  of  necessity  go  with  it.  It  is  possible  that  conven¬ 
tional  ethics  needs  revising.  It  may  come  to  be  regarded 
as  not  altogether  immoral  to  hold  that  that  which  is 
impure  is  not  made  pure  by  a  sacerdotal  function,  and 
that  true  sexual  kinship  is  not  determined  by  a  particular 
form  of  ecclesiastical  or  civil  marriage,  but  by  spiritual 


IO 


affinities  inherent  in  the  soul.  It  may  at  some  future  time 
be  considered  that  the  lapse  of  a  woman  from  conven¬ 
tional  virtue  is  no  more  an  unpardonable  sin  than  the 
selling  of  herself,  body  and  soul,  for  lucre  or  a  title. 
The  doctrine  may  be  accepted  that  an  offense  against 
respectability  is  no  worse  than  an  offense  against  human 
nature.  It  even  may  be  that  a  fallen  woman  may  be 
given  a  chance  to  redeem  herself,  and  yet  the  life  and 
purity  of  our  American  homes  survive. 

The  new  theology,  whatever  else  it  may  mean,  must 
involve  the  entire  abandonment  of  the  hateful  idea  of  a 
vengeful,  implacable  deity,  and  it  will  imply  an  ethics 
which  will  admit  of  the  possibility  of  the  advancement  of 
the  most  degraded  ;  will  assert  the  infinite  capacity  of 
development  in  the  human  soul  ;  will  deny  most  stren¬ 
uously  the  imagined  impurity  of  the  human  body  or 
any  of  its  parts  or  functions.  ‘  ‘  God  at  last  is  responsi¬ 
ble  for  all  of  us,”  Trilby’s  father  taught  her.  This,  to 
me,  is  the  ethics  of  “  Trilby.” 

Du  Maurier  has  done  a  great  and  brave  work.  We 
might  say  of  him,  as  has  been  said  of  the  ideal  poet  : 
“  Now  he  has  passed  that  way,  see  after  him.  There  is 
not  left  any  vestige  of  despair  or  misanthropy  or  cun¬ 
ning  or  exclusiveness,  or  the  delusion  of  hell  or  the 
necessity  of  hell — and  no  man  thenceforward  shall  be 
degraded  for  ignorance  or  weakness  or  sin.  ’  ’ 


« 


II 


NOTE  ON  SPIRITUAL  AFFINITY 

In  the  discussion  following  the  reading  of  the  foregoing 
paper  before  the  “Fellowship  for  Ethical  Research” 
considerable  difference  was  developed  regarding  the 
exact  meaning  of  ‘  ‘  spiritual  affinity  ’  ’  and  its  bearing 
upon  “sexual  kinship.” 

Now  Stormouth’s  dictionary  defines  spiritual  as  “not 
gross,  not  material,  possessing  the  nature  or  q  dities  of 
a  spiritual  being,  pure,  holy.”  This  definition  will  serve 
our  purpose  as  well  as  any. 

Without  entering  into  a  discussion  as  to  the  nature  of 
man,  or  of  the  nature  of  spirit  or  soul,  all  will,  I  sup¬ 
pose,  agree  that  some  functions  and  attributes  of  human¬ 
ity  are  less  material,  less  gross,  more  ethereal,  than  others: 
for  instance,  thought  than  digestion,  love  than  muscular 
action.  The  question  whether  the  spiritual  aspect  of 
man’s  nature  is  separable  from  the  material  is  irrelevant 
to  the  question.  It  is  enough  that  man  presents  these 
two  sides  to  his  nature,  and  the  higher  or  more  intangi¬ 
ble  side  let  us  agree  to  call  the  spiritual  side.  The 
impelling  motives  to  the  sex  relation  in  mankind  may  be 
roughly  enumerated,  proceeding  from  lowest  to  highest, 
as  follows  : 

i st.  The  hope  of  attainment  of  some  extraneous  re¬ 
ward  or  benefit,  as  money,  position,  title,  social  esteem, 
gratification  or  ambition.  This  leads  to  prostitution  and 
to  “  marriages  de  convenance ,  ”  which,  while  they  differ 
in  dignity  and  respectability,  are  essentially  of  like  nature. 

2d.  Simple,  gross,  animal  desire,  having  reference  to 
persons  of  the  opposite  sex  almost  indiscriminately,  or 
with  regard  only  to  their  physical  attractions. 


% 


12 


3d.  Friendship,  or  passing  fondness  for  a  person  of 
the  opposite  sex,  founded  upon  qualities  inherent  in  that 
other  person,  but  not  exclusive  of  a  like  feeling  for  other 
individuals. 

4th.  Romantic  love,  a  feeling  of  intense  attraction  for 
the  other,  partly  physical,  partly  intellectual  or  spiritual, 
and,  while  it  lasts,  in  its  nature  exclusive  of  like  feelings 
for  others. 

5th.  A  still  more  elevated,  refined  and  spiritual  senti¬ 
ment,  best  expressed  in  the  beautiful  opening  sentence  of 
Edward  Carpenter’s  essay  on  “Marriage:”  “Of  the 
great  mystery  of  human  love,  and  that  most  intimate 
relation  of  two  souls  to  each  other — perhaps  the  firmest, 
most  basic  and  indissoluble  fact  that  we  know  ;  of  that 
strange  sense — often,  perhaps  generally,  instantaneous — 
of  long  precedent  familiarity  and  kinship  ;  that  deep 
reliance  and  acceptation  of  another  in  his  or  her  entirety  ; 
of  the  tremendous  strength  of  the  chain  which  thus  at 
times  will  bind  two  hearts  in  lifelong  dedication  and  de¬ 
votion,  persuading  and  indeed  not  seldom  compelling 
the  persons  concerned  to  the  sacrifice  of  some  of  the 
other  elements  of  their  lives  and  characters  ;  and  withal 
of  a  certain  inscrutable  veiledness  from  each  other  which 
so  frequently  accompanies  the  relation  of  the  opposite 
sexes,  and  which  forms  at  once  the  abiding  charm  and 
the  pain — sometimes  the  tragedy — of  their  union  ;  of 
this  palpitating,  winged,  living  thing,  which  we  may 
perhaps  call  the  real  marriage,  I  would  say  but  little  ; 
for,  indeed,  it  is  only  fitting  or  possible  to  speak  of  it  by 
indirect  language  and  suggestion,  nor  may  we  venture 
to  rudely  drag  it  from  its  sanctuary  into  the  gaze  of 
common  light.” 


13 


These  different  motives  and  relations  doubtless  over¬ 
lap  and  blend,  the  second,  for  instance,  being  an  element 
underlying  the  higher  ;  and,  moreover,  they  are  in¬ 
dividual  cases  modified  and  overruled  by  extraneous 
influences  such  as  real  or  fancied  duties  and  obligations 
to  others. 

It  does  not  follow  that  any  one  of  these  impulses  is 
necessarily  and  inherently  wrong  at  all  times  and  all 
places.  My  contention  is  that  the  purity  and  elevated¬ 
ness  ris£s  with  the  character  of  the  impulses,  and  that 
this  constitutes  the  “spiritual  affinity.”  Doubtless  not 
every  nature  is  capable,  in  its  present  stage  of  evolution, 
at  least,  of  reaching  spiritual  heights.  To  such  as  are 
not,  of  course,  the  best  they  can  do  is,  for  the  moment, 
right  for  them. 

As  for  an  ecclesiastical  or  civil  ceremony,  I  fail  to  see 
that  it  contributes  anything  to  the  purity  or  spirituality 
of  the  relation,  or  that  it  has  any  value  beyond  the  con¬ 
ventional  one  of  serving  as  a  record  of  the  social  status. 

The  sanction  of  right  is  happiness.  I  can  conceive  of 
no  better,  no  nobler,  no  other  ;  but  the  trivial  happiness 
of  the  moment  should  often  be  subordinated  to  the 
deeper,  purer,  more  spiritual  and  enduring  happiness 
of  the  future,  and  to  understand  and  do  this  is  right¬ 
eousness. 


« 


THE  CONSERVATOR 

The  Conservator  is  an  exponent  of  the  world  movement  in  Ethics.  It  is  not 
published  in  the  interest  of  any  sect  or  party,  but  of  Ethical  principle  and  practice 
as  reflected  in  all  societies  and  churches  and  outside  of  all. 

Published  monthly  by  Innes  dr3  Son,  200  S.  Tenth  Street,  Philadelphia. 

Entered  at  the  Post  Office  in  Philadelphia  as  second-class  matter. 

HORACE  L.  TRAUBEL,  Editor. 

JV.  THORNTON  INNES,  }  n  . 

ED  WARD  K.  INNES.  /  Bumu“ 

Send  subscriptions  and  all  business  communications  to  the  Business  Managers, 
1831  Cajnac  Street,  Philadelphia.  Draw  money  orders,  checks  and  drafts  to  the 
order  of  Edward  K.  Innes. 

All  communications  intended  for  the  Editor  should  be  addressed  to  Horace  L. 


Traubel,  Camden, 

New  Jersey. 

/  / 

Per  Year 

=  =  $1.00;  Single  Copy 

-  10  Cents 

